Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

["Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 7/24/07, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:06:51 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> This is a royal pain, since it now throws an ERROR for the obviously
> >>> preferable piece of code below:
> >>>
> >>> if (err) {
> >>>     do_something();
> >>>     return -ERR;
> >>> } else {
> >>>     do_somthing_else();
> >>> }
> >> Hmmm, is that obviouly nicer than the below?  Its fully a line longer
> >> for no benefit.  But ignoring that, this seems to have snuck in to
> >> CodingStyle hmmm ... will see what I can do if anything to stop these
> >> being picked up I guess.
> >>
> >>      if (err) {
> >>              do_something();
> >>              return -ERR;
> >>      } else
> >>              do_something_else();
> >
> > The kool kids on linux-usb-devel largely ended up deciding that the second
> > version looks dorky.
> >
> > Especially if there's a comment over do_something_else(), and if there's
> > not a comment, perhaps there should be?
> >
> >> Andrew, as you merged the change to CodingStyle I'll take that as your
> >> being ok with these being accepted.
> >
> > It's very marginal and is sure to get people hot and bothered.  I'd suggest
> > that checkpatch be neutral on that.
>
> Ok, now if either the preceeding block or following block has {}'s then
> we don't report this block for being one line long.  We will miss some
> this way, but hey.
>

It also complains on the following:

+       if (retval && !--handle->open) {
+               /*
+                * Make sure we are not delivering any more events
+                * through this handle
+                */
+               synchronize_sched();
+       }

There is no way I'll drop braces there. You should probably not
exclude comments from line count when making decision if braces are
needed.

-- 
Dmitry